(03-23-2012 08:11 AM)XLance Wrote: And all the Notre Dame "fans" say "blame it on the coach" again. If we just had a better coach who could push all of the right buttons and the right time, while maintaining all of the standards, and not changing anything about how we used to do it.
Jeez....a broken record.
I was trying to be nice, and you attack because I struck a nerve? I'm just trying to suggest a path that Notre Dame can return to what they once were, college football needs it. Change with the times and Notre Dame can be great again, or the Irish can keep on with a head in the sand and eventually whither away. It isn't always the coach's fault.

"Oh, how the mighty have fallen" was just you "trying to be nice"?

Sorry, I missed that subtle, gratuitous friendly gesture.

Yes, the astounding post-ND coaching successes of Bob Davie, Ty Willingham and Charlie Weis gives the lie to ND fans' belief that these were lazy, uninspired hires by an ND administration that values winning championships less than other things.

LSU and Alabama before Saban, Southern Cal before Carroll, Oklahoma before Stoops, Florida before Meyer and Ohio State before Tressel all show that hiring the right coach is not the most important ingredient to revive a down, traditional program, correct?

Buck, I don't give a damn about "the rest of college football". Neither do you. You only cared about WVU, not the Big East, during WVU's move to the Big 12.

There is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly natural and understandable as a fan of that school.

Let's just all be honest about it. XLance just wants ND in the ACC to strengthen the confrerence that Carolina is in, not out of some altruistic motive to help ND or for "the good of the game".

(03-23-2012 06:34 AM)TerryD Wrote: A playoff system that requires one to win a conference championship to be eligible would effectively shut out any of the current non-automatic qualifiers from any hope of playing for the national championship.

I don't see how, politically, they could get away with creating a new system that's actually more arbitrarily unfair than the system it is supposed to replace. Whatever future playoff/BCS iteration comes down the pike will likely have to preserve an at-large option for an outlier team to sneak into the four team playoff if they're ranked in the top four.

Take away this option and you make anti-trust attention from the Justice Department more likely rather than less likely.

It also doesn't allow for a situation wherein the two best teams in the country are from the same conference. There couldn't be a rematch if a conference championship is a requirement.

As long as that door (at large option) remains open, I think Notre Dame can stay independent indefinitely.

So, all in all, the article doesn't scare too many people in South Bend. There is serious doubt that a four team playoff involving only conference champs will evolve from the BCS.

Well Terry, I'm going to cut out a small portion of what you have said thus far and focus on that. Whether or not Notre Dame is losing influence really isn't much of a concern to me and reading this thread thus far is like watching a remake of Custer's Last Stand. Very noble of you to take on all who would come to celebrate that article. I will stick to the comments about the system as a whole.

I disagree that a tournament of champions provides an even tougher route to the championship. An Institution would have to prove how it is more difficult now than before. Take a program like Boise State for instance. Before now they would have had to have had a perfect season to get even a whiff of the National Championship. Even then, perfect seasons from the bigger conferences would get in first. How is that system easier than a conference championship requirement? If they end up in the Big East and go undefeated it is very likely they are in the tournament. They could still get in with one loss. Looking at last year they would have been in such a tournament if they had a conference championship game for their conference. The two systems are actually very similar in the opportunity that is there. The difference is that the previous one was entirely up to opinions where as this one would be much more systematic and less prone to manipulation. Any lawyer could take that fact and blow apart any argument that a conference champion national championship tournament is more unfair to these other programs.

The Justice Department wouldn't jump in on a case where a very large majority of American Citizens that watch college football Approve of the new changes. Especially with such a highly volatile political climate in the country.

As far as having the best two teams in the country play in the national championship regardless of conference affiliation, really? I really did not expect that argument out of you Terry. We JUST saw how big of a failure that can be. I could see why some narrow minded folks might try to defend "Having the best two teams in the country play" but you? It is about ratings Terry, it is about money. A Notre Dame man such as yourself knows that. Besides, any statement of who are the very best two teams in the league is all opinion anyways and on any given day a team may play like the best team in the country or just a mediocre one. Take LSU for instance. Biased opinions should be taken out of the equation. That is what a tournament of conference champions gives us.

All that being said, I agree with you that Notre Dame will remain Independent and I have stated plenty of times the reasons why I believe that. Good luck in this thread Terry.

(03-23-2012 06:34 AM)TerryD Wrote: A playoff system that requires one to win a conference championship to be eligible would effectively shut out any of the current non-automatic qualifiers from any hope of playing for the national championship.

I don't see how, politically, they could get away with creating a new system that's actually more arbitrarily unfair than the system it is supposed to replace. Whatever future playoff/BCS iteration comes down the pike will likely have to preserve an at-large option for an outlier team to sneak into the four team playoff if they're ranked in the top four.

Take away this option and you make anti-trust attention from the Justice Department more likely rather than less likely.

It also doesn't allow for a situation wherein the two best teams in the country are from the same conference. There couldn't be a rematch if a conference championship is a requirement.

As long as that door (at large option) remains open, I think Notre Dame can stay independent indefinitely.

So, all in all, the article doesn't scare too many people in South Bend. There is serious doubt that a four team playoff involving only conference champs will evolve from the BCS.

Well Terry, I'm going to cut out a small portion of what you have said thus far and focus on that. Whether or not Notre Dame is losing influence really isn't much of a concern to me and reading this thread thus far is like watching a remake of Custer's Last Stand. Very noble of you to take on all who would come to celebrate that article. I will stick to the comments about the system as a whole.

I disagree that a tournament of champions provides an even tougher route to the championship. An Institution would have to prove how it is more difficult now than before. Take a program like Boise State for instance. Before now they would have had to have had a perfect season to get even a whiff of the National Championship. Even then, perfect seasons from the bigger conferences would get in first. How is that system easier than a conference championship requirement? If they end up in the Big East and go undefeated it is very likely they are in the tournament. They could still get in with one loss. Looking at last year they would have been in such a tournament if they had a conference championship game for their conference. The two systems are actually very similar in the opportunity that is there. The difference is that the previous one was entirely up to opinions where as this one would be much more systematic and less prone to manipulation. Any lawyer could take that fact and blow apart any argument that a conference champion national championship tournament is more unfair to these other programs.

The Justice Department wouldn't jump in on a case where a very large majority of American Citizens that watch college football Approve of the new changes. Especially with such a highly volatile political climate in the country.

As far as having the best two teams in the country play in the national championship regardless of conference affiliation, really? I really did not expect that argument out of you Terry. We JUST saw how big of a failure that can be. I could see why some narrow minded folks might try to defend "Having the best two teams in the country play" but you? It is about ratings Terry, it is about money. A Notre Dame man such as yourself knows that. Besides, any statement of who are the very best two teams in the league is all opinion anyways and on any given day a team may play like the best team in the country or just a mediocre one. Take LSU for instance. Biased opinions should be taken out of the equation. That is what a tournament of conference champions gives us.

All that being said, I agree with you that Notre Dame will remain Independent and I have stated plenty of times the reasons why I believe that. Good luck in this thread Terry.

Thanks. I am usually alone in my opinions here, lol.

I am an old timer. I didn't/don't like the Alliance or the BCS and I won't like a playoff, even if ND is involved.

I liked the old AP and UPI polls governing the rankings and the mythical college football national champs, even when they said that "head to head games matter" in 1989 when Miami beat ND and "head to head games don't matter" in 1993 when ND beat Florida State but the polls voted to give FSU and Bobby Bowden the title.

So, my stance is not a "Notre Dame thing". I think that old system gave people a lot to debate and argue about. That created a lot of discussion, interest and fun.

I don't like conferences, any of them. I think that the bowl matchups and the intersectional rivalries were better then than now with a number of major independents, few conference bowl tie ins and teams from different regions playing each other in big time, national interest games.

I think that bigger conferences playing insular games mostly within that conference stifles those things. I would think that even if ND were in a conference for football and winning titles.

Yeah, I know that I am in a distinct minority and a dinosaur when it comes to this stuff. So it goes.

(03-23-2012 06:34 AM)TerryD Wrote: A playoff system that requires one to win a conference championship to be eligible would effectively shut out any of the current non-automatic qualifiers from any hope of playing for the national championship.

I don't see how, politically, they could get away with creating a new system that's actually more arbitrarily unfair than the system it is supposed to replace. Whatever future playoff/BCS iteration comes down the pike will likely have to preserve an at-large option for an outlier team to sneak into the four team playoff if they're ranked in the top four.

Take away this option and you make anti-trust attention from the Justice Department more likely rather than less likely.

It also doesn't allow for a situation wherein the two best teams in the country are from the same conference. There couldn't be a rematch if a conference championship is a requirement.

As long as that door (at large option) remains open, I think Notre Dame can stay independent indefinitely.

So, all in all, the article doesn't scare too many people in South Bend. There is serious doubt that a four team playoff involving only conference champs will evolve from the BCS.

Well Terry, I'm going to cut out a small portion of what you have said thus far and focus on that. Whether or not Notre Dame is losing influence really isn't much of a concern to me and reading this thread thus far is like watching a remake of Custer's Last Stand. Very noble of you to take on all who would come to celebrate that article. I will stick to the comments about the system as a whole.

I disagree that a tournament of champions provides an even tougher route to the championship. An Institution would have to prove how it is more difficult now than before. Take a program like Boise State for instance. Before now they would have had to have had a perfect season to get even a whiff of the National Championship. Even then, perfect seasons from the bigger conferences would get in first. How is that system easier than a conference championship requirement? If they end up in the Big East and go undefeated it is very likely they are in the tournament. They could still get in with one loss. Looking at last year they would have been in such a tournament if they had a conference championship game for their conference. The two systems are actually very similar in the opportunity that is there. The difference is that the previous one was entirely up to opinions where as this one would be much more systematic and less prone to manipulation. Any lawyer could take that fact and blow apart any argument that a conference champion national championship tournament is more unfair to these other programs.

The Justice Department wouldn't jump in on a case where a very large majority of American Citizens that watch college football Approve of the new changes. Especially with such a highly volatile political climate in the country.

As far as having the best two teams in the country play in the national championship regardless of conference affiliation, really? I really did not expect that argument out of you Terry. We JUST saw how big of a failure that can be. I could see why some narrow minded folks might try to defend "Having the best two teams in the country play" but you? It is about ratings Terry, it is about money. A Notre Dame man such as yourself knows that. Besides, any statement of who are the very best two teams in the league is all opinion anyways and on any given day a team may play like the best team in the country or just a mediocre one. Take LSU for instance. Biased opinions should be taken out of the equation. That is what a tournament of conference champions gives us.

All that being said, I agree with you that Notre Dame will remain Independent and I have stated plenty of times the reasons why I believe that. Good luck in this thread Terry.

Thanks. I am usually alone in my opinions here, lol.

I am an old timer. I didn't/don't like the Alliance or the BCS and I won't like a playoff, even if ND is involved.

I liked the old AP and UPI polls governing the rankings and the mythical college football national champs, even when they said that "head to head games matter" in 1989 when Miami beat ND and "head to head games don't matter" in 1993 when ND beat Florida State but the polls voted to give FSU and Bobby Bowden the title.

So, my stance is not a "Notre Dame thing". I think that old system gave people a lot to debate and argue about. That created a lot of discussion, interest and fun.

I don't like conferences, any of them. I think that the bowl matchups and the intersectional rivalries were better then than now with a number of major independents, few conference bowl tie ins and teams from different regions playing each other in big time, national interest games.

I think that bigger conferences playing insular games mostly within that conference stifles those things. I would think that even if ND were in a conference for football and winning titles.

Yeah, I know that I am in a distinct minority and a dinosaur when it comes to this stuff. So it goes.

One thing I know I can agree with you on TerryD, is that Matt Hayes is an incompetent, lazy journalist. That's coming from someone with a degree in Journalism.

One thing I know I can agree with you on TerryD, is that Matt Hayes is an incompetent, lazy journalist. That's coming from someone with a degree in Journalism.

I also find it interesting and ironic that he and many others continue to write article after article (and one message board thread after another) about how irrelevant ND is. That seems a bit self defeating of that thesis, no?

(03-23-2012 12:00 PM)TerryD Wrote: I also find it interesting and ironic that he and many others continue to write article after article (and one message board thread after another) about how irrelevant ND is. That seems a bit self defeating of that thesis, no?

I think if one is to be intellectually honest then one cannot deny that Notre Dame has lost some relevance compared to others on the national stage. That does not mean that Notre Dame is irrelevant.

When you have national rivalries with USC, Michigan, Michigan State, Miami, Florida State and Navy one can hardly state that Notre Dame is irrelevant. Top that off with the fact that programs would line up to state their case as to why Notre Dame should play them if an opening in the Notre Dame schedule were to happen.

I would go so far as to say that perhaps Notre Dame hasn't lost much relevancy but that the rest of the programs around the country have been catching up and surpassing Notre Dame in the relevancy department.

Notre Dame isn't going anywhere, EVERYONE in FBS conferences, which are BCS conferences, gets a share of BCS money... and 70% of the schools are LESSER than Notre Dame's program anyway... so as long as the system exists, they'll not only get a share of money, but have a route like any school.